1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIMON F. RANTEESI, No. 2:24-cv-02590-DAD-CKD (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND 14 EDWARD BORLA, APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11) 16 17 Petitioner Simon Ranteesi is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 18 a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 1, 2025, the court dismissed petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus as an 21 unauthorized second or successive petition and closed this action. (Doc. No. 8.) In particular, the 22 court explained that petitioner has previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus attacking 23 the conviction and sentence challenged in this case that was denied on the merits and petitioner 24 had conceded that he had not obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to 25 proceed with a second or successive petition as is required. (Id. at 1–2.) That same day, 26 judgment was entered. (Doc. No. 9.) 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 On April 11, 2025, petitioner filed the pending motion for reconsideration pursuant to 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. No. 10.) That same day, petitioner also filed an 3 application for a certificate of appealability. (Doc. No. 11.) 4 Rule 59(e) “motions to reconsider are not vehicles permitting the unsuccessful party to 5 ‘rehash’ arguments previously presented.” United States v. Navarro,

, 1299 6 (E.D. Cal. 1997), rev’d on other grounds,

(9th Cir. 1998), (rejecting “after 7 thoughts” and “shifting of ground” as appropriate grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)); 8 see also Goodlow v. Camacho, No. 3:18-cv-00709-CAB-MDD,

, at *1 (S.D. 9 Cal. Nov. 19, 2020) (noting that parties may not use Rule 59(e) to “relitigate old matters, or to 10 raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment”) 11 (citation omitted); United States v. Westlands Water Dist.,

(E.D. Cal. 12 2001) (the moving party must show “more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and 13 [that] recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its 14 original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden”); Costello v. U.S. Gov’t,

(C.D. Cal. 1991) (“[C]ourts avoid considering Rule 59(e) motions where the grounds 16 for amendment are restricted to either repetitive contentions of matters which were before the 17 court on its prior consideration or contentions which might have been raised prior to the 18 challenged judgment.”). 19 “A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if ‘(1) the district court is presented with newly 20 discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that 21 was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Ybarra v. 22 McDaniel,

(9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland,

(9th Cir. 2001)). A Rule 59(e) motion seeks “a substantive change of mind by the 24 court,” Tripati v. Henman,

, 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988), and “is an extraordinary remedy 25 which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon,

, 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 26 1999). 27 Here, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and application for a certificate of 28 appealability are a rehash of many of the arguments petitioner previously furthered in his 1 | objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 6), which the 2 | undersigned has already considered and rejected (Doc. No. 8). Petitioner again argues that he 3 | was “the victim of Medical Malpractice because of Paxil Intoxication,” “the victim of Racial 4 | Justice Act,” and “Innocent of the Charged Crime.” (Doc. No. 10 at 1.) However, petitioner once 5 || again presents no argument related to the reason that the court dismissed his petition and declined 6 | to issue a certificate of appealability—namely, his previously filed federal habeas petition 7 | challenging the same underlying state court conviction. “Mere disagreement with the court’s 8 | prior ruling [] provides no basis to grant a motion to amend or alter the judgment.” Patterson v. 9 | Sullivan, Co. 1:18-cv-00361-DAD-EPG (HC),

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2019) 10 | (citing Westlands Water Dist.,

(“To succeed [on a Rule 59(e) motion], a 11 | party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its 12 | prior decision.”)). Petitioner here has set forth no facts or law that would induce the court to 13 || reconsider its prior decision. Because he has not demonstrated that the court’s prior order was 14 | erroneous in any respect, the court finds no basis to grant the requested relief. 15 Accordingly, 16 1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED; 17 2. Petitioner’s application for the issuance of a certificate of appealability (Doc. No. 18 11) is DENIED for the reasons explained in the court’s prior order (Doc. No. 8); 19 and 20 3. This case shall remain CLOSED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. ** | Dated: _ June 23, 2025 Dal A. 2, axel 23 DALE A. DROZD 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25 26 27 28